Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-021-00502-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Monitoring of heavy metal contamination in Netravati river basin:

overview of pollution indices and risk assessment
S. Gayathri1 · K. Anoop Krishnan1 · A. Krishnakumar2 · T. M. Vishnu Maya1,3 · Vinu V. Dev1,4 · Sibin Antony1,4 ·
V. Arun1,4

Received: 13 April 2020 / Accepted: 2 February 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The continuum fluctuations of river water quality and the metal contamination within the sediments of Netravati river basin
were analysed using multivariate techniques and environmental indices. Water and sediment samples were collected from ten
locations along the flow path of river in the basin and the hydrogeochemical features were investigated. The results were com-
pared with maximum permissible limit values recommended by World Health Organization. A comprehensive Water Quality
Index methodology was applied to come up with transparent understanding of overall excellence in water quality status.
The dominant water cations and anions were within the order of N ­ a+ > ­Mg2+ > ­Ca2+ > ­K+ and H­ CO3− > ­Cl− > ­SO42− > ­NO3−.
The average abundance of sediment heavy metals was in the order of Pb > Mn > Ni > Zn > Cr > Cu > Co. An approach of
exploiting environmental indices: enrichment factor, geoaccumulation index, contamination factor, degree of contamination,
modified degree of contamination and Pollution Load Index were accustomed to assess the pollutant level. Geochemical
investigation and spatial distribution of heavy metals were represented by geographic information system based maps. The
results indicate that lead contamination of surficial sediments might pose a significant threat to aquatic biota and the persistent
exposure of pollutants even in low concentration causes changes in metabolic activities and alterations in the community
structure of river biota.

Keywords Netravati river basin · WQI · Heavy metal pollution · GIS · Piper diagram

Introduction in different ways to changes in external environment. The

discharge of domestic sewage, industrial or agricultural,
River basins representing main source of freshwater. The obviously has serious concern as it affects river’s ecology
agricultural, industrial and cultural activities depend on (Khedidja et al. 2018). River basin water quality is highly
the water availability with in the basin. Eventually, these dependent on physical, chemical and biological quality of
activities may trigger high solute load in the river basin and the hydrological system, because they are linked by human
ultimately causing river pollution, which has become a hot interactions with water bodies and sustainable development
environmental issue in recent decades. The fate and dynam- (Udayakumar et al. 2014; Mukate et al. 2019).
ics of solute load depends on a variety of natural and anthro- Water quality plays an important role in all aspects of
pogenic factors and each component of solute load will react human and ecosystem survival. Water quality degradation
resulting from point and nonpoint source pollution has
become a serious issue worldwide due to natural processes
* K. Anoop Krishnan (e.g., weathering, precipitation, soil erosion, etc.), anthro-
sreeanoop@rediffmail.com; sree.anoop@ncess.gov.in pogenic activities (e.g., agricultural, urban and industrial
1
Hydrological Processes Group, Trivandrum, India activities) and the increased utilization of water resources
2 (Fulazzaky et al. 2010; Sharma and Bhattacharya 2017). The
Crustal Processes Group, National Centre for Earth Science
Studies (NCESS), Akkulam, Trivandrum 695011, India hydrogeochemical properties of water are important factors
3 determining their use for domestic, industrial, and irriga-
Department of Environmental Science, Kannur University,
Mangattuparamba, Kannur 670567, India tional purposes; however, they are easily polluted due to
4 their critical roles in transporting municipal and industrial
University of Kerala, Trivandrum, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 20 Page 2 of 15 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20

pollution and runoff from agricultural land (Singh et al. water (2) to assess the water quality of Netravati river basin
2004; Rahman and Hossain 2019). Thus, it is important to using simple WQI method (3) to determine levels of heavy
identify and understand the sources, their interactions, and metals in sediment and to assess the evolution of contamina-
effects of water pollutants in the river basins. tion in Netravati river basin sediments through the selection
Numerous studies describe observed changes in chemical, of different indices.
ecological or hydrological variables and have also pointed
out the impacts of climate change or population growth on
water resources (Alcamo et al. 2007; Piao et al. 2010). The Materials and methods
literature includes several different approaches introduced
to assess water chemistry and status of water quality in Monitoring studies
the river (Shastry et al. 1997; Cude 2001; Subramani et al.
2005; Moller et al. 2006; Anna et al. 2017). Initially, the Study area and sampling locations
use of Water Quality Index (WQI) was proposed by Horton
(1965) and Brown et al. (1970). Water quality assessments Netravati is one of the principle rivers of Karnataka state
of rivers using WQI method has been widely used and it of India, that originates at Gangamoola, Samse, Yellaneer
has played an important role in water resource management Ghats of Kudremukh range, Western Ghats and is regarded
(Lumb et al. 2011; Mohebbi et al. 2013; Sutadian et al. 2016; as the primary source of drinking water for the cities of Man-
Akinbile and Omoniyi 2018). The WQI method, commonly galuru and Bantwal. The sampling sites (water/sediment)
used worldwide, is a simple and powerful tool for deter- with GIS coordinates is presented in Fig. 1. Netravati river is
mining the water quality in aquatic bodies, and it plays an a medium type river in the peninsular India and debouching
increasingly significant role in water resources management into the Arabian Sea, near Mangaluru city. The main tribu-
(Naubi et al. 2016; Kumar et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2017; Bora tary of Netravati is Kumaradhara river, which flows through
and Goswami 2017; Sener et al. 2017). The suitability of the famous pilgrimage centre, Sri Kshethra Dharmasthala
surface and groundwater samples for domestic purpose Sri Manjunatha Swamy Temple, Dharmasthala, Dakshina
and human consumption can be determined by calculating Karnataka. The length of the river is 106 km and it covers an
water quality indices. Piper trilinear diagram (Piper 1944) area 3500 ­km2. The Netravati basin receives about 95% of its
evaluate the evolution of the river water and relationship total annual rainfall within a period of 6 months from May
between rock types and water composition. It is a multivari- to October while remaining extremely dry from December
ate data analyses model, that can be employed for the sur- to March. The area has a tropical monsoon climate and is
face water characterization and classification. Piper diagram under the direct influence of the Arabian sea branch of the
reveals hydrochemical regime with relevancy the presence southwest monsoon. The Mrithyunjaya (Charmadi hole),
of ions viz. N­ a+, ­K+, ­Ca2+, ­Mg2+, ­HCO3−, ­CO32−, ­Cl− and Kapila (Shishila), Somavathi (Laila) and Aniyoor rivers are
2−
­SO4 (Manoj et al. 2013; Aminiyan et al. 2016; Sunkari the other tributaries of Netravati river.
and Abu 2019).
Rivers have a significant role in the acceptance and trans- Sample collection
portaion of heavy metals, and river sediment serve as not
only a major sink and carrier of heavy metals but also poten- To cover the entire stretch of the Netravati river, it was
tial sources of secondary pollution, which can also reflect divided approximately into ten sampling stations and the
their contamination level (Hsu et al. 2016). The effects of samples were collected during pre-monsoon season of
urbanization, industrialization and anthropogenic activities 2019. In Fig. 1, the map drawn using GIS software shows
generate heavy metals in sediments that cause aquatic pol- the Netravati river basin and the sampling (water/sediment)
lution (Grigoratos et al. 2014; Zhang et al. 2013; Martin stations. A calibrated Global Positioning System (GPS) was
et al. 2015). Heavy metals from geogenic and anthropogenic used to note the geographic coordinates of the sampling
sources enter the aquatic environments and pose a severe points. The water samples for analysing physiochemical
threat owing to their toxicity and biogeochemical build up parameters and the sediment samples for contamination geo-
into the aquatic environments (Cheng et al. 2015; Grigoratos chemistry were collected from the respective sampling sta-
et al. 2014; Martin et al. 2015). Rapid economic develop- tions in the river. Collected water was stored in acid washed
ment significantly affects the river water quality due to heavy and properly rinsed high density polyethylene bottles and
metal pollution. refrigerated to avoid container pollution and sample preser-
In the present study, the heavy metals were analysed and vation. The samples were filtered through 0.45-µm cellulose
the sediment quality was assessed using wide range of envi- nitrate hydrophilic syringe filters. For the analysis of heavy
ronmental quality indices. The main objectives of this study metals, water samples were preserved by adding few drops
are (1) to assess the physico-chemical properties of the river of 0.1 N H­ NO3 at the sampling site and kept at 4 °C in the

13
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20 Page 3 of 15 20

Fig. 1  Study area location map

dark until analysis to be carried out. The sediment samples Germany). Before digestion, the samples were dried in an
were collected using grab and transferred to pre-cleaned oven at 60 °C. To remove coarse materials, the samples were
polyethylene sampling bags and sealed. sieved to < 100 µm. Approximately 250 mg of dried sedi-
ment was placed in a 60-mL Teflon beaker and digested with
Analytical procedures 5:1 nitric acid (­ HNO3) and perchloric acid (­ HClO4). Subse-
quent addition of the acid mixture was performed and heated
The portable water quality analyser (Eutech, Aqua read 2000 until the sample was digested. The final solution was diluted
D, Germany) allows in situ monitoring of various parameters with deionized water and filtered using Grade A filter paper
of water samples, which include water temperatures (Temp), and was made up to 25 ml. Eight heavy metals (Zn, Cu,
pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), electrical conductivity (EC) and Ni, Co, Pb, Cr, Mn and Al) were measured in the digestion
total dissolved solid (TDS). Other parameters like alkalinity extract using Microwave plasma atomic emission spectro-
­(HCO3−), chlorinity (­ Cl−) and total hardness (HAR) were photometer (MP-AES). The concentrations of these metals
analysed by following standard methods prescribed by were expressed as parts per million (ppm). The minimum
APHA (2012). In the current work, the estimation of nutri- detection limits (MDLs) for Zn, Cr, Cu, Mn, Pb, Al, Co and
ents such as total phosphate ­(PO43−), total nitrate ­(NO3−), Ni were 0.01 ppm, respectively.
nitrite ­(NO2−) and silicate ­(SiO4) were carried out using Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) proce-
Continuous Flow Analyzer (CFA, Skalar SAN++1052, dures of analytical and instrument methods were evaluated
Netherlands). Microwave plasma atomic emission spectro- for all laboratory analyses by triplicate analysis, standard
photometer (MP-AES, Agilent 4210, Australia) is used for calibration curves, as well as quality control reference stand-
the simultaneous determination of major ions (­ Ca2+, ­Mg2+, ards to ensure the accuracy of the analysis. All statistical
­Na+, ­K+ and ­Fe2+) in the water samples. The minimum analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel (2007) and
detection limits (MDLs) for C ­ a2+, ­Mg2+, ­Na+, ­K+ and ­Fe2+ the bivariate Pearson correlation determined using Statistical
were 0.05, 0.12, 0.12, 0.65, 1.6 and 2.8 ppb, respectively. Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics, version
Prior to analysis, each segment of the sediment was 22).
divided into two portions. First sub-sample were used for the
physicochemical analysis. Second set of samples (0.2 mm Water Quality Index calculation
sieve) ground and sieved for the trace metal analysis. The
samples (< 200 µm) of the ground and dried sediment was WQI method perceived a simple, basic and a valuable tool
taken for the analysis of pH, conductivity and total organic for assessing river quality, since they transform multiple
carbon. Total carbon was measured using an Elementar environmental parameters and effectively convert them into
Vario EL cube analyser (Elementar, Langenselbold, Hesse, a single value reflecting the status of water quality (Zhaoshi

13
 20 Page 4 of 15 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20

et al. 2018; Mohana et al. 2020; Rahman and Rahaman Ecological risk indices
2018; Sudhakaran et al. 2020; Mahadevan et al. 2020).
Although Numerous water quality indices have been for- Enrichment factor (EF)
mulated all over the world such as US National Sanitation
Foundation Water Quality Index (NSFWQI) (Brown et al.
1970), Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment The extent of sediment contamination was assessed using
Water Quality Index (CCMEWQI) (Khan et al. 2003), Brit- enrichment factor. The EF of metals calculates the contribu-
ish Columbia Water Quality Index (BCWQI), and Oregon tion from anthropogenic sources for metal concentrations
Water Quality Index (OWQI) (Debels et al. 2005; Kannel and reflects the status and degree of sediment pollution
et al. 2007; Abbasi 2002). WQI consists mainly four steps, (Dickinson et al. 1996; Feng et al. 2004; Ganugapenta et al.
(a) selection of indicators, (b) transformation of measured 2018). In this method, it normalizes the measured heavy
values to a common scale; (c) assignment of weights; and metal concentration with respect to a reference metal either
(d) aggregation of the weighted sub-index to compute the Al or Fe. In this study, Al was used as the crustal reference
final index value (Sutadian et al. 2016). Typically, the WQI elements in EF calculations, because Al can be easily cal-
most widely used at global level is National Sanitation Foun- culated and it is one of the largest components of sediment.
dation Water Quality Index (Brown et al. 1970). After the The EF calculated using the following equation (Abubaker
analysis of physiochemical parameters, WQI was computed 2008):
by comparing it with the drinking water standards lay down
by WHO/BIS/ICMR according to the following steps: (Cx∕CAl) sample
EF = , (5)
Wi (Cx∕CAl) background
Step 1 ∶ Relative weight, Wi = ∑n , (1)
i=1 Wi where (Cx/CAl) sample is the ratio of the concentration of
test element to that of Al (Turekian and Wedepohl 1961;
where Wi is the weight of each parameter and n is the num- Taylor 1964). On the basis of EF, five contamination cat-
ber of parameters egories are recognised as follows (Sutherland, 2000),
Ci EF < 2 (deficiency to minimal enrichment), EF = 2–5 (mod-
Step 2 ∶ Quality rating, qi = × 100, (2) erate enrichment), EF = 5–20 (significant enrichment),
Si
EF = 20–40 (very high enrichment) and EF > 40 (extremely
where Ci is Concentration of each parameter in the water high enrichment).
sample in mg/L, Si is Standard limit for the respective
parameter in mg/L.
Geoaccumulation Index (Igeo)
Step 3 ∶ Subindex of the ith parameter, SIi = Wi × qi , (3)

n
∑ The index of geoaccumulation, a quantitative measure for
Step 4 ∶ Water quality index, WQI = SIi . (4) the degree of contamination of the sediments with heavy
i=1
metals in aquatic sediments developed by Muller (1979).
The obtained water quality WQI values are classified Igeo permits the assessment of extent of sediment contami-
broadly into five different categories (Bharti and Katyal nation with respect to global standard. This is calculated
2011), < 50 (excellent), 50–100 (good), 100–200 (poor), using the following Eq. (6):
200–300 (very poor), > 300 (unsuitable for drinking.
Cn
Igeo = log2 , (6)
1.5Bn
Sediment quality guidelines (SQGs)
where Cn is the measure of the metal concentration in the
SQGs were used for evaluating degree of chemical status in sediment, Bn is the background concentration of the element
the sediments and for computing ecological risk and metal (average shale concentration has been given by Turekian
enrichment posed by the sediments (Macdonald et al. 2000). and Wedepohl (1961), and 1.5 is the factor compensating
SQGs consist of threshold effect concentration (TEC) and background data (correction factor) due to the lithogenic
a probable effect concentration (PEC). TEC indicates the effect (Taylor 1964). On the basis of Muller’s classification,
concentration below which adverse effect rarely occur, PEC this includes 7 classes: Igeo ≤ 0 (practically unpolluted),
depicts the concentration above which adverse effects fre- 0 < Igeo < 1(unpolluted to moderately polluted), 1 < Igeo < 2
quently occur. (moderately polluted), 2 < Igeo < 3 (moderately to strongly

13
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20 Page 5 of 15 20

polluted), 3 < Igeo < 4 (strongly polluted), 4 < Igeo < 5 the method proposed by Tomlinson et al. (1980). The PLI for
(strongly to extremely polluted), 5 < Igeo (extremely pol- a single site is the nth root of n number multiplying the fac-
luted) (Ganugapenta et al. 2018). tors (CF values) together. PLI for each site was determined
by the following Eq. (9):
Contamination factor (CF) and degree of contamination
(Cdeg) PLI = CF1 × CF2 × CF3 … CFn , (9)
where CF is the contamination factor and n is the number
Contamination factor was calculated by taking the ratio of parameters.
between the concentration of each metal in the sediment According to Mohiuddin et al. (2010), PLI mainly divided
and the average shale concentration of the same (Turekian into 3 categories: PLI = 0 (excellence), PLI = 1 (baseline
and Wedepohl 1961). CF for each metal was determined by level of pollutants), PLI > 1 (progressive deterioration of
the following equation: the site).

Cn
CF = , (7)
Bn
Results and discussion
where Cn is the metal concentration at contaminated site and
Bn is the average shale concentration. Monitoring studies
The contamination factor values were classified into 4
major classes: CF < 1 (low contamination), 1 < CF < 3 (mod- Physiochemical parameters of the river water
erate contamination), 3 < CF < 6 (considerable contamina-
tion) and CF > 6 (high contamination) (Hakanson 1980). The water samples, which is denoted by NRB, collected
Cdeg is the sum of all Cf values of a particular sampling from the study area during pre-monsoon season (2019) were
site. Ahdy and Khaled (2009) classified Cdeg in terms of analysed for various physiochemical parameters and their
four grade ratings of sediments. Cdeg < 8 (low degree of minimum, maximum, average and WHO standards are pre-
contamination), 8 < Cdeg < 16 (moderate degree of Contam- sented in Table 1. The measured water temperature varied
ination)16 < Cdeg < 32 (considerable degree of Contamina- from 28.70 to 32.70 with an average value of 31.01. pH in
tion) Cdeg > 32 (very high degree of Contamination). the river water ranges from 6.65 to 7.24 which indicates
alkaline nature and was found to be within the acceptable
Modified degree of contamination (mCdeg) limit prescribed by WHO. Conductivity is considered as an
important parameter to categorize drinking water quality
(Islam et al. 2014), the water ranges from 61–167 µs/cm
Modified degree of contamination was calculated from dif- (mean 80.20 µs/cm) and the values lies within the permis-
ferent locations using the following equation (Abrahim and sible limit. The maximum EC value was obtained at sta-
Parker 2008): tion NRB2. The increase in electrical conductivity may be
attributed to decrease in the water level due to high rate
of evaporation especially in the low land areas. TDS is the
∑i=n
CF
mCdeg = i=1
, (8) measure of total amount of dissolved minerals in water. In
n
the present study area values of TDS varied between 39 and
where n is the number of analysed pollutant and CF repre- 93 mg/L (mean 51.80 mg/L) and the values stands within the
sents contamination factor. prescribed limit. The turbidity of the surface water fluctuates
According to category of mCd, mCdeg < 1.5 (uncon- from 3.13 to 7.67 NTU. All the water samples were within
taminated), 1.5 ≤ mCdeg < 2 (low degree of contamina- the permissible value of 5 NTU except 3 stations (NRB5,
tion, 2 ≤ mCdeg < 4 (moderate degree of contamination), NRB8, NRB10) which exceeded the permissible value due
4 ≤ mCdeg < 8 (high degree of contamination, mCdeg > 8 to the suspended particulate matter, effluents or surface
(very high degree of contamination) (Hakanson 1980). run-off. DO determines the biological changes by aerobic
or anaerobic organisms (Sener et al. 2017). The higher dis-
Pollution Load Index solved oxygen values represent good water quality and best
for a healthy ecosystem and it is dependent on temperature
of the system. DO ranged from 6.68–7.70 mg/L with an
Environmental quality of sediments was assessed by Pollu- average value of 7.42, indicates the photosynthetic activity
tion Load Index (PLI). PLI for each site was determined by and aerobic activity of organisms.

13
 20 Page 6 of 15 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20

Table 1  Summary of physical Sl. no. Parameters Units WHO Std. Min Max Avg SD
and chemical parameters of the
river water 1 Temp (°C) 28.70 32.70 31.01 1.31
2 pH 6.5–8.5 6.65 7.24 6.65 0.35
3 EC (µS/cm) 1500 61.00 146.00 80.40 0.30
4 DO (mg/l) 5 6.68 7.70 7.42 24.54
5 TDS (mg/l) 1000 39.00 93.00 51.80 15.61
6 TUB (NTU) 5 3.13 7.67 4.74 1.30
7 HCO3− (mg/l) 500 22.06 73.56 53.56 14.51
8 HAR (mg/l) 200 3.53 32.44 10.56 10.70
9 Cl− (mg/l) 250 14.81 20.74 17.48 2.29
10 PO43− (mg/l) 5 0.004 0.071 0.03 0.01
11 NO3− (mg/l) 45 0.003 0.024 0.010 0.00
12 NO2− (mg/l) 3 0.0004 0.006 0.003 0.00
13 SiO4 (mg/l) 250 5.54 9.180 6.79 1.07
13 SO42− (mg/l) 250 6.12 89.34 32.56 26.53
14 Ca2+ (mg/l) 75 2.04 8.76 4.28 2.18
15 Mg2+ (mg/l) 50 1.42 23.68 6.28 8.07
16 Na+ (mg/l) 200 3.33 183.56 39.82 65.89
17 K+ (mg/l) 12 0.82 10.74 3.09 3.53
18 Fe2+ (mg/l) 0.3 0.14 1.09 0.35 0.26

Alkalinity is known as the ability of water to neutral- source of magnesium is ferromagnesian minerals within
ize acids. From the results, carbonate alkalinity was not igneous and metamorphic rocks and magnesium carbonate
observed in any of the water samples. The concentration of in sedimentary rocks (Singh et al. 2017). The concentrations
bicarbonate in the study area varied from 22.06–73.56 mg/L of ­Ca2+ and M
­ g2+ from the study area was within the recom-
(mean 53.56 mg/L). The chloride contents of water varied mended limits of WHO. Sodium concentration ranged from
from 14.81–20.74 mg/L (mean 17.48 mg/L). Normally chlo- 3.33 to 183.56 mg/L (mean 39.82 mg/L). The maximum
rine is not found in the surface water, and its presence in concentration of ­Na+ is 200 mg/L set by WHO. NRB10
water is correlated with the substances added to the water shows highest ­Na+ concentration, associated with its geo-
for disinfection purposes or which are used to whiten the logical characteristics and dissolution of lithogenic sodium,
laundry during washing. The maximum allowable limit of ion exchange of sodium through cation exchange process.
chloride concentration is 250 mg/L set by WHO and the Potassium concentration varied from 0.82 to 10.74 mg/L
obtained values stand with in the permissible limit. Total with an average value of 3.09 mg/l. The maximum allowable
hardness value in the present study were in the range of limit of ­K+ concentration is 12.0 mg/L and all the samples
3.53–32.44 mg/L (mean 10.56 mg/L) and the values stands fall within the permissible limit. Potassium is an essential
within the limit, were included in the class of soft water. element for humans, plants and animals and derived in food
The average value of sulphate is 32.56 mg/L and ranged chain mainly from vegetation and soil. Iron is a naturally
from 6.12 to 89.34 mg/L were all the samples falls within occurring metal in soils, rocks and minerals. The maximum
the permissible limit. The major sulphate sources are atmos- level of iron is 0.3 ppm prescribed by WHO. In the present
pheric deposition, sulphate-bearing fertilizers and bacterial work, most of the water samples falls out of the prescribed
oxidation of sulphur compounds (Wayland et al. 2003; Sidle limit (0.14–1.09 mg/L), the higher concentration might be
et al. 2000). influenced by geological structures, acid mine drainages,
Ca2+ and M­ g2+ are considered to be dominant cations in industrial wastes and landfill leachates. An increase in the
­ a2+ and ­Mg2+ concentrations of water samples
river water. C concentration of iron in water depends on the ability of iron
varied from 2.04–8.76 mg/L and 1.42–23.68 mg/L, respec- ions to precipitate in alkaline and oxidising conditions.
tively. The highest calcium and magnesium values obtained Phosphate, nitrate, nitrite and silicate stands within the
at NRB10. Calcium can be derived from dissolution of car- permissible limit. In the present study, the concentrations of
bonate minerals or carbonate cement within formations. ­PO43−, ­NO3−, ­NO2−varied from 0.004–0.071 mg/L (mean
­Ca2+ present in drinking water in the form of calcium car- 0.03 mg/L), 0.003–0.024 mg/L (mean 0.010 mg/L) and
bonate or calcium chloride (Alam et al. 2017). Magnesium 0.0004–0.006 mg/L (mean 0.003 mg/L). The normal value
is the most abundant element in the Earth crust. The primary of phosphate in surface water is 5 mg/L and the excess level

13
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20 Page 7 of 15 20

can cause eutrophication. Presence of nitrate is an indicator the concentration of each parameter in the water sample
of anthropogenic pollution. Nitrate derived from industrial by standard limits recommended by WHO and then the
and agricultural areas, due to leaching from plant nutrients, obtained value is multiplied by 100 (Eq. 2). The sub-index
nitrate fertilizers and domestic and industrial waste. Silicate value ­(SIi) for the ith parameter is obtained by multiplying
occurs naturally due to intense weathering. Besides it can relative weight (Wi) with the quality rating (qi) (Eq. 3). WQI
occur anthropogenically from industrial effluents, sewage is the sum of the ­SIi obtained (Eq. 4) and then accordingly
waste, etc. Enrichment of silicate reduced the nutrient con- categorised it into different types of water quality.
centration. The nutrient values in the study do not pose a The computed WQI values ranged between 18.74 and
threat to the aquatic system. 56.26. In the present study area, majority of water samples
belongs to excellent category except 3 stations indicates
Evaluation of water quality using Water Quality Index that the water samples satisfy the drinking water standards
method and hence potable for consumption and domestic purposes.
Among the 10 stations, NRB1 (51.85), NRB2 (56.12) and
To evaluate the water quality of river, a comprehensive WQI NRB8 (56.26) shows the maximum WQI value of indicat-
method was adopted. Based on the 12 measured water qual- ing the good water quality status. These variations might be
ity parameters, WQI is calculated for the 10 sampling sta- due to increase input of municipal or agricultural activities
tions. In the perspective of potability of water for drinking discharge at the bank of river. Any change in the land use
purposes, the quantified hydrochemical parameters such as or the land cover affects the surface features like the plant
pH, EC, TDS, ­HCO3, Cl, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Fe, ­NO3, ­NO2 cover, concrete surface, elevations and slopes, which in turn
of water samples were compiled together to obtain WQI impacts the water quality and water flow. The results are
value for each sampling stations. World Health Organization summarised in Table 3.
(WHO) limits were used for quality assessment.
The first step is to assign different weights (Wi) to the Pearson correlation analysis
selected parameters in a scale of 1 to 5. The highest weight
of 5 was assigned for parameters such as nutrients (­ NO3, Multivariate statistical technique, Pearson’s bivariate cor-
­NO2), those have the major effects on water quality. Nitrogen relations that determines the linear association between two,
mainly present in the form of nitrate ­(NO3) and nitrite ­(NO2) numerically measured, continuous variables and the direc-
in water. Considering the importance in water quality, pH, tion of the relationship. The Pearson’s correlation matrix
EC, TDS, Fe were assigned a weight of 4. H ­ CO3 and Cl were for the analysed parameters of the river water samples is
given the weight of 3. On the basis of least effect on water presented in Table 4. The ****obtained results show strong
quality, the minimum value of 2 was assigned for Ca, Mg, positive correlation between EC and TDS (r2 = 0.995), TDS
Na and K. The relative weights (Wi) were obtained by divid- in water is mainly caused by natural sources, sewage wastes
ing the corresponding weight to the sum of the weights of and surface rainwater, Ca with Mg (r2 = 0.940), the presence
all the parameters (Eq. 1). The results are given in Table 2. of Mg in these waters might be due to silicate weathering,
In the next step, quality rating (qi) was assigned by dividing Ca also shows significantly positive correlation with Na
(r2 = 0.932), K (r2 = 0.941), ­SO4 (r2 = 0.946); Mg positively
correlated with Na (r2 = 0.996) and K (r2 = 0.991), indi-
Table 2  Relative weight of chemical properties cates leaching of secondary salts, and also good correla-
Parameters WHO standards Weight Relative weight tion with S­ O4 (r2 = 0.993); Na strongly correlated with S
­ O4
pH 6.5–8.5 4 0.097
EC 1500 4 0.097 Table 3  WQI values and water Stations WQI Water Type
TDS 1000 4 0.097 types of the samples
HCO3− 500 3 0.073 NRB1 51.86 Good
Cl− 250 3 0.073 NRB2 56.12 Good
Ca2+ 75 2 0.048 NRB3 23.10 Excellent
Mg2+ 50 2 0.048 NRB4 24.84 Excellent
Na+ 200 2 0.048 NRB5 31.47 Excellent
K+ 12 2 0.048 NRB6 26.86 Excellent
Fe2+ 0.3 5 0.121 NRB7 18.74 Excellent
NO3− 45 5 0.121 NRB8 56.26 Good
NO2− 3 5 0.121 NRB9 29.09 Excellent
∑ 41 1 NRB10 28.11 Excellent

13
 20 Page 8 of 15 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20

Table 4  Pearson linear correlation coefficient matrix of physicochemical parameters

pH EC TDS Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ K+ Cl− HCO3− SO42− NO3− NO2−

pH 1
EC − 0.144 1
TDS − 0.134 0.995** 1
Ca2+ − 0.374 0.083 0.023 1
Mg2+ − 0.195 − 0.098 − 0.173 0.940** 1
Na+ − 0.174 − 0.067 − 0.141 0.932** 0.996** 1
K+ − 0.183 0.008 − 0.067 0.941** 0.991** 0.997** 1
Cl− 0.702* 0.347 0.342 0.017 0.065 0.106 0.138 1
HCO3− − 802** 0.348 0.331 0.280 0.093 0.069 0.104 − 0.407 1
SO42− − 0.294 − 0.080 − 0.136 0.946** 0.943** 0.946** 0.945** 0.061 0.236 1
NO3− − 0.220 0.162 0.217 − 0.228 − 0.416 − 0.401 − 0.379 0.015 0.488 − 0.106 1
NO2− − 0.228 0.230 0.273 − 0.118 − 0.277 − 0.265 − 0.241 − 0.138 0.387 − 0.017 0.762* 1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

(r2 = 0.993), which can be explained by dissolution of evapo- Assessment of heavy metals in sediment
rate minerals and the cation exchange in the clay miner-
als; K has significant correlation with ­SO4 (r2 = 0.945). The Sediment features
correlation of S­ O4 with Ca and Mg suggests that sulphate
is mainly associated with magnesium sulphate or gypsum/ The sediment samples collected from the study area are sub-
anhydrite (Noh et al. 2009). Na–K and Ca-Mg have good jected to texture, elemental and heavy metal analyses and
homology and they have similarity of origins and existence are represented as NRS. Results of grain size content shows
modes (Jiang et al. 2015). Nitrite and nitrate show a sig- that sand, silt, clay contents in surface sediment were 78.9%,
nificant positive correlation (r2 = 0.762) among themselves 16.7%, 4.4%, respectively, and thus sediments of Netravati
indicates that both of them are derived from common source, river can be characterized as sandy silts of dry weight on
mostly from agricultural activities. average with maximum sand and silt fractions at NRS7 and
NRS2, respectively. The TOC contents among different
sites varied from 0.3 to 0.8% with an average value of 1.4%.
Piper diagram The elemental composition analysis of sediments revealed
the nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen content in organic sedi-
To infer the hydro-geochemical facies of river water sam- ment of the river varied from 0.05 to 0.35%, 0.29–4.07%,
ples, piper diagram (Piper 1994) was developed. In this tech- 0.30–1.59%. Fresh algal organic matter typically has C/N
nique, hydrochemical properties of water is described on ratios between 4 and 10 (Meyers 1994). The sediment sam-
the basis of dominant cations and anions. Ternary diagrams ples of study area have C/N ratios varied between 4.8 and
visualize the compositions and water types of rivers and 12.4%.
thus shows the relative importance of different weathering
regimes (Huh et al. 1998). The result of the study showed Sediment metal distribution
that the study area consists mainly of three different water
types: (1) NaCl (2) Ca–Mg–HCO3 (3) Ca–Mg–Cl–SO4 The average concentration of eight heavy metal elements
(Fig. 2). This relative increase of ­SO4 and Cl compared to in the surface sediments of Netravati river basin increased
­HCO3 as well as the increase of Na compared to Ca and Mg, in the order Al > Pb > Mn > Ni > Zn > Cr > Cu > Co. The
indicates the presence of evaporites in the study area (Wahed highest concentration of metals was observed in NRS2,
et al. 2015). Hydrofacies of NaCl and ­CaCl2 may be due to whereas lowest metal concentration was observed at
cation exchange process and water rock interactions such as NRS5. In the present study, Al has the highest mean value
the dissolution of halite type of rocks and calcium carbonate (47,827.2 mg/kg) in the study area for all sampling sites,
types of rock (Khalid 2019). The Ca–Mg–HCO3 represents the concentration of Al varied from BDL-476 mg/kg (use
freshwater that recently has been infiltrated and Ca–Mg–Cl of Al as reference element for Enrichment Factor calcula-
type specifies the mixing of contamination sources in the tion), whereas Co has lowest mean value (12.8 mg/kg) of
water samples. all sampled sites and the values varied from BDL-20 mg/

13
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20 Page 9 of 15 20

Fig. 2  Piper diagram showing

the classification of water type

kg. The values of Zn and Mn ranged from BDL-476 mg/kg (mean 70.8 mg/kg) and Pb varied from BDL-948 mg/kg
(mean 114.6 mg/kg) and 60–436 mg/kg (mean 213.6 mg/ (mean 322.6 mg/kg). The highest concentration of Pb was
kg) The mean concentration of Pb was 2 times more than obtained at NRS2 (948 mg/kg). In conclusion, comparing
that of Co. In the present study Ni, Cr, Cu and Pb was with average shale values the mean metal concentrations
determined as they are often in the category of toxic of Al, Mn and Co were relatively low and Zn, Pb, Cr, Cu
heavy metals. The concentrations of Ni varied from 16 and Ni concentrations were relatively high. The obtained
to 1000 mg/kg (mean 140 mg/kg), Cr varied from 20 to results are summarised in Table 5. The spatial distribution
272 mg/kg (90.8 mg/kg), Cu varied from 16 to 368 mg/kg of each heavy metal was determined using ArcGIS Spatial
Analyst tool (Fig. 3).

Table 5  Heavy metal Stations Zn Cu Ni Co Pb Cr Mn Al

concentrations (mg/kg) in river
sediments NRS1 BDL 40 120 20 BDL 104 436 57,476
NRS2 BDL 368 1000 BDL 948 20 264 57,552
NRS3 28 36 32 BDL BDL 76 180 27,408
NRS4 BDL 24 32 BDL BDL 88 152 24,876
NRS5 28 16 28 BDL BDL 48 60 11,416
NRS6 8 40 48 8 BDL 68 220 64,336
NRS7 BDL 24 20 BDL BDL 76 164 17,600
NRS8 104 56 60 12 12 84 128 82,280
NRS9 44 52 16 12 BDL 72 252 72,284
NRS10 476 52 44 12 8 272 280 63,044
Guideline value 70 55 75 25 12.5 100 950 82,300

BDL below detection level

13
 20 Page 10 of 15 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20

Fig. 3  Spatial distribution a Al, b Pb, c Mn, d Ni, e Cr, f Zn, g Co, h Cu

13
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20 Page 11 of 15 20

Sediment toxicity (ERL-150) and (PEL-459), (PEC-315), (SEL-820),

(ERM-410).
The ecological risk and the metal enrichment posed by the Long et al. (1995) proposed ERL and ERM. Except Zn
sediment were evaluated using sediment quality guidelines all other metals were generally lower range indicating the
(SQGs) (Table 6) The metal concentration found in the absence of occurrences of adverse biological effects. Except
Netravati river basin is compared with sediment quality Ni all other metals exceed the ERM values, indicating that
guideline, which are regarded as non-regulatory bench- these elements are of greatest concern in terms of adverse
marks for the interpretation of chemical data. The site biological effects.
wise comparison of average concentration of each metal
with SQGs revealed that Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni values are below Contamination assessment
the threshold effect concentration (TEC) [threshold effect
level (TEL), lowest effect level (LEL) and effect range low PLI provides the information on the quality of sediment and
(ERL) are included in the category of TEC] except Zn. pollution status of the study area (Ali et al. 2016; Suresh
TEC identifies the pollutant concentrations below which et al. 2012). The obtained PLI values were ranged from
are not harmful for benthic organisms (MacDonald et al. 0.01 to 2.68 with an average of 0.72. Higher PLI value was
2000). Probable effect concentrations category (PEC) obtained at NRS2 indicates that the sediment of the that
includes probable effect level (LEL), severe effect level particular sampling site was contaminated (PLI > 1), might
(SEL) and effect range median (EFM). All the five met- be due to increased human activity, since they are mainly
als are above the PEC and SEL values indicating harmful township areas having higher population and establish-
effects on benthic organisms occurring frequently (Ragi ments. While remaining all other sampling sites PLI values
et al. 2017; Smith et al. 1996; Omwene et al. 2018). In are less than 1, indicating that all the studied heavy metals
case of Pb and Cr PEL values are below the SQGs val- were within the baseline level.
ues. Zn having increased concentrations for both TEL and The contamination factor values were calculated and
PEL concentrations (TEL-123), (TEC-121), (LEL-120), are given in Table 7. On the basis of calculation, CF were

Table 6  Comparative heavy AVG TEC TEL LEL ERL PEC PEL SEL ERM
metal concentrations in NRB
sediments and SQGs Cr 90.8 43.4 37.3 26 81 111 90 110 370
Cu 70.8 31.6 35.7 16 34 149 197 110 270
Pb 96.8 35.8 35 31 46.7 128 91.3 250 218
Ni 140 22.7 18 16 20.9 128 91.3 250 51.6
Zn 68.8 121 123 120 150 459 315 820 410

AVG average, TEC threshold effect concentration, TEL threshold effect level, LEL lowest effect level, ERL
effect range low, PEC probable effect concentration, PEL probable effect level, SEL severe effect level,
ERM effect range median

Table 7  CF, Cdeg, mCd and Stations CF Category Cd Category mCd Category PLI Category
PLI for surface sediments of
NRB NRS1 0.96 LC 6.71 LDC 0.84 UC 0.98 UC
NRS2 10.97 HC 76.81 HDC 9.60 VHDC 2.68 PO
NRS3 0.52 LC 3.12 LDC 0.39 UC 0.45 UC
NRS4 0.44 LC 2.63 LDC 0.33 UC 0.44 UC
NRS5 0.33 LC 1.95 LDC 0.24 UC 0.25 UC
NRS6 0.59 LC 4.15 LDC 0.52 UC 0.46 UC
NRS7 0.36 LC 2.18 LDC 0.27 UC 0.37 UC
NRS8 0.86 LC 6.85 LDC 0.86 UC 0.01 UC
NRS9 0.65 LC 4.55 LDC 0.57 UC 0.58 UC
NRS10 1.52 MC 12.20 MDC 1.52 LDC 0.99 UC

LC low contamination, MC moderate contamination, HC high contamination, LDC low degree of contami-
nation, MDC moderate degree of contamination, HDC high degree of contamination, UC uncontaminated,
LDC low degree of contamination, VHDC very high degree of contamination, PO polluted

13
 20 Page 12 of 15 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20

classified mainly into four different categories (Bonnail Netravati river is the main source of water to the people
et al. 2016; Ustaoglu and Tepe 2019). CF for Zn (mean of Bantwal and Mangalore. Mangalore, Bantwal, Puttur,
0.66), Co (mean 0.67), Mn (mean 0.24), and Al (mean Sullia, Pane Mangalore, Belthangady, ujire, Dharmasthala
0.55) is < 1 in all studied locations, resides in low con- are some of the important places located in the banks of
tamination category. CF of Cu (mean 1.49), Ni (mean river. Baikampady Industrial Cluster, Mangalore is located
2.60) and Cr (mean 1.03) resides in the moderate con- in the Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka State. The
tamination category. According to observations very high Baikampady Industrial Cluster consists of a major refinery,
contamination was resulted with the presence of Pb, CF storage of crude and finished petroleum products, LPG stor-
of Pb is maximum with an average value of 16.13 and age and bottling, fertilizer plant, pharmaceutical industry,
varies between BDL-47.40, indicates high contamina- lead refining unit, paint and dispersion unit, iron ore pelleti-
tion. Highest Contamination factors of NRS1, NRS5 and zation plant and pig iron plant apart from few engineering,
NRS6 mainly by Ni. Increased contamination factor for fabrication, plywood plants and ready-mix plants. Lead is a
Cr is mainly obtained at NRS3, NRS4 and NRS7. NRS8 nonessential metal and the Lead waste comes from the com-
and NRS9 mainly contaminated by Cu. Overall, the CF bustion of lead fuel, non-ferrous pyrometallurgical metal
for all metals were the descending order of: Pb > Ni > C production, steel, iron, coal combustion, cement production,
u > Cr > Co > Zn > Al > Mn. The degree of contamina- and accumulation sewage sludge. Improper drainage system
tion and modified degree of contamination ranges from (storm water drains) for surface runoff within the industrial
1.95 to 76.81 and 0.24 to 9.60. Most of the stations shows cluster area and the adjacent area leads to the increase in
very low degree of contamination except NRS2 with high certain heavy metals. Discharge of waste from agricultural
degree of contamination (76.81) and modified degree of and anthropogenic activities continuously not only pollute
contamination (9.60). The load of contaminants received the water but also the sediment and biota live on it.
in this area is very high, because low concentrations of silt The Igeo values are in the following ranges: Zn (− 4.16 to
and clay are able to retain high contents of trace metals. 1.73), Cu (− 2.08 to 2.44), Ni (− 2.23 to 3.73), Co (− 1.83 to
The results of enrichment factor (EF) and Geo-accumu- 0.00), Pb (− 1.91 to 4.98), Cr (− 2.76 to 1.01), Mn (− 4.41
lation index (Igeo) are presented in Table 8. The enrichment to 1.54) and Al (− 3.44 to 0.58). The negative values indi-
factor represents EF values of all heavy metals measured in cating that the river is not polluted with this metal (Dung
the river sediments. Most of the sampling sites exhibited et al. 2013) According to Igeo values the study area was
minimum to significant enrichment. Moderate enrichment unpolluted with Zn, Co, Cr, Mn and Al. The highest Igeo
was observed for Cu (0.18–11.69), Ni (0.36–28.60) and Cr values were exhibited by Cu, Ni and Pb revealed moderately
(0.32–3.95). Zn (0–6.54), Co (0–1.51) and Mn (0.15–0.9) to strongly polluted which agrees with EF and CF values.
shows minimal enrichment. Significant enrichment was
obtained for Pb (0–67.78). The extreme EF for Cu, Ni, and
Pb were observed at NRS2 (Mangalore region) and highest Conclusion
enrichment of Cr and Mn were observed at NRS7 (Uppinan-
gady). The sequence of EF for heavy metals in sediments In the study, water quality of Netravati river basin and its
of Netravati river basin follows the order: Pb > Ni > Cr > suitability as drinking water was evaluated. The analyti-
Cu > Zn > Mn > Co. This indicates Pb was most abundant cal results of physicochemical parameters were compared
while compared with other metals. Whereas Co had lowest with the standard guideline values recommended by WHO
appearance. (2011). The observed chemical variations may be because
of rock-water interactions, ion-exchange reactions and

Table 8  Calculated Igeo and EF Heavy metals Geoaccumulation Index Enrichment Factor
values in sediments from NRB
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg

Zn − 4.16 1.73 − 0.93 0.00 6.54 1.13

Cu − 2.08 2.44 − 0.61 0.18 11.69 2.16
Ni − 2.23 3.73 − 0.53 0.36 28.60 4.87
Co − 1.83 0.00 − 0.61 0.00 1.51 0.42
Pb − 1.91 4.98 0.18 0.00 67.78 6.89
Cr − 2.76 1.01 − 0.85 0.32 3.95 2.23
Mn − 4.41 − 1.54 − 2.75 0.15 0.90 0.51
Al − 3.44 − 0.58 − 1.62 1.00 1.00 1.00

13
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20 Page 13 of 15 20

percolation of anthropogenic influences. Piper diagram Water Resour Manag 4:1023–1030. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s4089​
revealed water type of each location, geochemistry of the 9-018-0226-8
Alam JB, Hossain A, Khan SK, Banik BK, Islam MR, Muyen Z, Rah-
study area and displayed a pattern of the dominance of the man MH (2007) Deterioration of water quality of Surma river.
major cations and anions, N ­ a+ > ­Mg2+ > ­Ca2+ > ­K+ and Environ Monit Assess 134:233–242. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
­HCO3 > ­Cl > ­SO4 > ­NO3−. WQI method was applied to
− − 2− s1066​1-007-9612-7
assess the water quality of the study area and the computed Alcamo J, Florke M, Marker M (2007) Future long-term changes in
global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic
WQI values were between 18.74 and 56.26. The results changes. Hydrol Sci J 52(2):247–275. https​://doi.org/10.1623/
showed that the water quality varied from good (30%) to hysj.52.2.247
excellent (70%) in this basin according to the WQI classi- Ali MM, Ali ML, Islam MS, Rahman MZ (2016) Preliminary assess-
fication during our study period. The analysis of total con- ment of heavy metals in water and sediment of Karnaphuli River,
Bangladesh. Environ Nanotechnol Monit Manag 5:27–35. https​
centrations of heavy metals and their distribution show that ://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2016.01.002
sediments from Netravati river basin are slightly contami- Aminiyan MM, Aminiyan FM, Heydariyan A (2016) Study on hydro-
nated with heavy metals. Sediment pollution in the current chemical characterization and annual changes of surface water
study was assessed using ecological risk indices. The CF, quality for agricultural and drinking purposes in semi-arid area.
Sustain Water Resour Manag 2:473–487. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
PLI, EF and Igeo exposed that sediments were unpolluted s4089​9-016-0071-6
to extremely polluted by heavy metals. Igeo denoted that the APHA (2012) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
sediments are polluted with Pb, Ni and Cu. From the calcu- Waste Water. APHA, ­22nd edition. Washington, DC.
lations of EF, CF, Cdeg, mCdeg and PLI indexed that lead is Bharti N, Katyal D (2011) Water quality indices used for surface water
vulnerability assessment. International Journal of Environmental
the dominant pollutant in Netravati river basin, the values of Sciences 2:154–173
Pb showed higher enrichment and progressive deterioration Bonnail E, Sarmiento AM, Del Valls TA, Nieto JM, Riba I (2016)
at the station NRS2. As per the SQGs, Zn having increased Assessment of metal contamination, bioavailability, toxicity and
concentrations for both TEL and PEL concentrations. It bioaccumulation in extreme metallic environments (Iberian Pyrite
Belt) using Corbicula fluminea. Sci Total Environ 544:1031–1044.
can be concluded from the analysis that the deterioration https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2015.11.131
of water quality and heavy metal pollution in the sub basin Bora M, Goswami DC (2017) Water quality assessment in terms
of Netravati is mainly because of the increase in urbani- of water quality index (WQI): case study of the Kolong River,
zation and agricultural practises, which changes the river Assam, India. Appl Water Sci 7:3125–3135. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1007/s1320​1-016-0451-y
hydrological regimes. To prevent severe contamination of Brown RM, Mcclelland NI, Deininger RA, Tozer RG (1970) A water
the study area, it is crucial to implement timely monitoring quality index: do we dare? Water Sewage Works 117(10):339–343
and to evolve remediation strategies for sustainable develop- Cheng P, Zhu H, Zhong B (2015) Transport mechanisms of con-
ment and management of the river. taminants released from fine sediment in rivers. Acta Mech Sin
31:791–798. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1040​9-015-0520-8
Cude CG (2001) Oregon water quality index a tool for evaluating water
Acknowledgements We are thankful to Dr. V. Nandakumar, Director, quality management effectiveness. J Am Water Resour Assoc
NCESS for providing laboratory and knowledge resource facilities and 37:125–137. https:​ //doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb0548​ 0.x
Dr. D. Padmalal, Scientist G & Group Head, Hydrological Processes de Carvalho AVM, de Lima MN, Abuchacra RC, Abuchacra PFF, Neto
Group, for the continuous support. Authors are grateful to Central JAB, Borges HV, de Oliveira VC (2016) Ecological risks of trace
Chemical Laboratory (CCL) for extending the facilities to execute the metals in Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: an index analy-
work. We acknowledge the NCESS Core Programme (W.P.3B.1) on sis approach. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 133:306–315. https​://doi.
“Biogeochemistry and nutrient fluxes of the rivers of Western Ghats” org/10.1016/j.ecoen​v.2016.07.012
for carrying out the monitoring studies in the Netravati river basin. Debels P, Figueroa R, Urrutia R, Barra R, Niell X (2005) Evaluation of
water quality in the Chillan River (Central Chile) using physico-
chemical parameters and a modified Water Quality Index. Envi-
ron Monit Assess 110:301–322. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​
1-005-8064-1
References Dickinson WW, Dunbar GB, McLeod H (1996) Heavy metal history
from cores in Wellington Harbour, New Zealand. Environ Geo
Abrahim GMS, Parker RJ (2008) Assessment of heavy metal enrich- 27:59–69. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF007​70603​
ment factors and the degree of contamination in marine sediments Dung TTT, Cappuyns V, Swennen R, Phung NK (2013) From geo-
from Tamaki Estuary, Auckland, New Zealand. Environ Monit chemical background determination to pollution assessment
Assess 136:227–238. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​1-007-9678-2 of heavy metals in sediments and soils. Rev Environ Sci Biol
Abubakr MI (2008) Combining multivariate analysis and geochemi- 12:335–353. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1115​7-013-9315-1
cal approaches for assessing heavy metal level in sediments from Feng H, Han X, Zhang W, Yu L (2004) A preliminary study of
Sudanese harbors along the Red Sea coast. Microchem J 90:159– heavy metal contamination in Yangtze River intertidal zone
163. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.micro​c.2008.05.004 due to urbanization. Mar Pollut Bull 49:910–915. https​://doi.
Ahdy HH, Khaled A (2009) Heavy metals contamination in sediments org/10.1016/j.marpo​lbul.2004.06.014
of the western part of Egyptian Mediterranean Sea. Aust J Basic Fulazzaky MA (2010) Water quality evaluation system to assess the
Appl Sci 3:3330–3336 status and the suitability of the Citarum river water to different
Akinbile CO, Omoniyi O (2018) Quality assessment and classification uses. Environ Monit Assess 168:669–684. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/
of Ogbese river using Water Quality Index (WQI) tool. Sustain s1066​1-009-1142-z

13
 20 Page 14 of 15 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20

Fulazzaky MA, Seong TW, Masirin MIM (2009) Assessment of water Machiwal D, Jha MK, Singh VP, Mohan C (2018) Assessment and
quality status for the Selangor River in Malaysia. Water Air Soil mapping of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: current
Pollut 205:63–77. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1127​0-009-0056-2 status and challenges. Earth Sci Rev 185:901–927. https​://doi.
Ganugapenta S, Nadimikeri J, Chinnapolla SRRB, Ballari L, Madiga org/10.1016/j.earsc​irev.2018.08.009
R, Nirmala K, Tella LP (2018) Assessment of heavy metal pollu- Mahadevan H, Krishnan KA, Pillai RR, Sudhakaran S (2020) Assess-
tion from the sediment of Tupilipalem Coast, southeast coast of ment of urban river water quality and developing strategies for
India. Int J Sediment Res 33:294–302. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. phosphate removal from water and wastewaters: Integrated
ijsrc​.2018.02.004 monitoring and mitigation studies. SN Appl Sci. https​://doi.
Gonzalez-Macias C, Schifter I, Lluch-Cota DB, Mendez-Rodriguez L, org/10.1007/s4245​2-020-2571-0
Hernandez-Vazquez S (2006) Distribution, enrichment and accu- Manoj K, Ghosh S, Padhy PK (2013) Characterization and classifica-
mulation of heavy metals in coastal sediments of Salina Cruz tion of hydrochemistry using multivariate graphical and hydrosta-
Bay, Mexico. Environ Monit Assess 118:211–230. https​://doi. tistical techniques. Res J Chem Sci 3:32–42
org/10.1007/s1066​1-006-1492-8 Martín JR, De Arana C, Ramos-Miras JJ, Gil C, Boluda R (2015)
Grigoratos T, Samara C, Voutsa D, Manoli E, Kouras A (2014) Chemi- Impact of 70 years urban growth associated with heavy metal
cal composition and mass closure of ambient coarse particles at pollution. Environ Pollut 196:156–163. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
traffic and urban-background sites in Thessaloniki, Greece. Envi- envpo​l.2014.10.014
ron Sci Pollut Res 21:7708–7722. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1135​ Martin JAR, Arana CD, Ramos-Miras JJ, Gil C, Boluda R (2015)
6-014-2732-z Impact of 70 years urban growth associated with heavy metal
Hakanson L (1980) An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution con- pollution. Environ Pollut 196:156–216. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trol. A sedimentological approach. Water Res 14:975–1001. https​ envpo​l.2014.10.014
://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(80)90143​-8 Mohana AA, Rahman MA, Islam MR (2020) Deep and shallow tube-
Horton RK (1965) An index number system for rating water quality. J well water from an arsenic-contaminated area in rural Bangladesh:
Water Pollut Control Fed 37(3):300–305 risk-based status. Int J Energy Water Res 4(2):163–179. https​://
Hsu LC, Huang Y, Chuang YH, Chen HW, Chan YT, Teah HY, Tzou doi.org/10.1007/s4210​8-020-00059​-4
YM (2016) Accumulation of heavy metals and trace elements in Mohebbi MR, Saeedi R, Montazeri A, Vaghefi KA, Labbafi S,
fluvial sediments received effluents from traditional and semi- Oktaie S, Mohagheghian A (2013) Assessment of water qual-
conductor industries. Sci Rep 6:34250. https​://doi.org/10.1038/ ity in groundwater resources of Iran using a modified drinking
srep3​4250 water quality index (DWQI). Ecol Indic 30:2834. https​://doi.
Jiang L, Yao Z, Liu Z, Wang R, Wu S (2015) Hydrochemistry and its org/10.1016/j.ecoli​nd.2013.02.008
controlling factors of rivers in the source region of the Yangtze Moller M, Alchanatis V, Cohen Y, Meron M, Tsipris J, Naor A, Cohen
River on the Tibetan Plateau. J Geochem Explor 155:76–83. https​ S (2006) Use of thermal and visible imagery for estimating crop
://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexpl​o.2015.04.009 water status of irrigated grapevine. J Exp Bot 58:827–838. https​
Kannel PR, Lee S, Lee YS, Kanel SR, Khan SP (2007) Application of ://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl11​5
water quality indices and dissolved oxygen as indicators for river Mukate S, Wagh V, Panaskar D, Jacobs JA, Sawant A (2019) Devel-
water classification and urban impact assessment. Environ Monit opment of new integrated water quality index (IWQI) model to
Assess 132:93–110. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​1-006-9505-1 evaluate the drinking suitability of water. Ecol Indic 101:348–354.
Khalid S (2019) An assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoli​nd.2019.01.034
and drinking purposes around brick kilns in three districts of Muller G (1979) Schwermetalle in den sedimenten des Rhein-
Balochistan province, Pakistan, through water quality index and seVeranderungen seitt 1971. Umschau 79:778–783
multivariate statistical approaches. J Geochem Explor 197:14–26. Naubi I, Zardari NH, Shirazi SM, Ibrahim FB, Baloo L (2016)
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.gexpl​o.2018.11.007 Effectiveness of Water Quality Index for monitoring Malaysian
Khan F, Husain T, Lumb A (2003) Water quality evaluation and river water quality. Pol J Environ 25(1):231–239. https​://doi.
trend analysis in selected watersheds of the Atlantic region of org/10.15244​/pjoes​/60109​
Canada. Environ Monit Assess 88(1–3):221–248. https​://doi. Noh H, Huh Y, Qin J, Ellis A (2009) Chemical weathering in the
org/10.1023/A:10255​73108​513 three rivers region of Eastern Tibet. Geochim Cosmochim Acta
Kumar KS, Logeshkumaran A, Magesh NS (2015) Hydro-geochemis- 73:1857–1877. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2009.01.005
try and application of water quality index (WQI) for groundwa- Omwene PI, Oncel MS, Çelen M, Kobya M (2018) Heavy metal
ter quality assessment, Anna Nagar, part of Chennai City, Tamil pollution and spatial distribution in surface sediments of
Nadu, India. Appl Water Sci 5:335–343. https​://doi.org/10.1007/ Mustafakemalpaşa stream located in the world’s largest borate
s1320​1-014-0196-4 basin (Turkey). Chemosphere 208:782–792. https ​ : //doi.
Kumar MR, Krishnan KA, Das R, Vimexen V (2020) Seasonal phyto- org/10.1016/j.chemo​spher​e.2018.06.031
plankton succession in Netravathi-Gurupura estuary, Karnataka, Piao S, Ciais P, Huang Y, Shen Z, Peng S, Li J, Zhou L, Liu H, Ma
India: study on a three tier hydrographic platform. Estuar Coast Y, Ding Y, Friedlingstein P, Liu C, Tan K, Yu Y, Zhang T, Fang
Shelf Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2020.10683​0 J (2010) The impacts of climate change on water resources and
Long ER, Macdonald DD, Smith SL, Calder FD (1995) Incidence of agriculture in China. Nature 467:43–51. https​://doi.org/10.1038/
adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentra- natur​e0936​4
tions in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ Manag 19:81– Ragi M, Saranya P, Krishnakumar A, Upendra B, Liji TM, Krishnan
97. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF024​72006​ KA, Padmalal D (2017) Geochemistry of heavy metals and CHNS
Lumb A, Sharma TC, Bibeault JF (2011) A review of genesis and composition in the sediments of Netravati River Basin: insight
evolution of water quality index (WQI) and some future direc- into the pollution aspects. J Indian Assic Sedimentol 34:121–125
tions. Water Qual Expo Health 3:11–24. https​://doi.org/10.1007/ Rahman A, Rahaman H (2018) Contamination of arsenic, manganese
s1240​3-011-0040-0 and coliform bacteria in groundwater at Kushtia District, Bangla-
MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000) Development and desh: human health vulnerabilities. J Water Health 16(5):782–795.
evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for https​://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2018.057
freshwater ecosystems. Arc Environ Con Tox 39:20–31. https​:// Rahman SS, Hossain MM (2019) Gulshan Lake, Dhaka City, Bang-
doi.org/10.1007/s0024​40010​075 ladesh, an onset of continuous pollution and its environmental

13
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2021) 7:20 Page 15 of 15 20

impact: a literature review. Sustain Water Resour Manag 5:767– Taylor SR (1964) Trace element abundances and the chondritic Earth
777. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4089​9-018-0254-4 model. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 28:1989–1998
Saadali B, Khedidja A, Mihoubi N (2020) Water quality assessment Thapa K, Shrestha SM, Rawal DS, Pant BR (2019) Quality of drinking
and organic pollution identification of Hammam-Grouz dam water in Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Sustain Water Resour Manag
(Northeastern Algeria). Arab J Geosci 13:1091. https​://doi. 5:1995–2000. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4089​9-019-00354​-x
org/10.1007/s1251​7-020-06117​-9 Tomlinson DL, Wilson JG, Harris CR, Jeffrey DW (1980) Problems in
Sener S, Sener E, Davraz A (2017) Evaluation of water qual- the assessment of heavy-metal levels in estuaries and the forma-
ity using water quality index (WQI) method and GIS in Aksu tion of a pollution index. Helgolander Meeresunters 33:566–575.
River (SW-Turkey). Sci Total Environ 584:131–144. https​://doi. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF024​14780​
org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.01.102 Turekian KK, Wedepohl KH (1961) Distribution of the elements
Sharma S, Bhattacharya A (2017) Drinking water contamination and in some major units of the earth’s crust. Geol Soc Am Bull
treatment techniques. Appl Water Sci 7:1043–1067. https​://doi. 72:175–192
org/10.1007/s1320​1-016-0455-7 Udayakumar P, Jose JJ, Krishnan KA, Kumar CSR, Manju MN, Salas
Sidle WC, Roose DL, Shanklin DR (2000) Isotopic evidence for natu- PM (2014) Heavy metal accumulation in the surficial sediments
rally occurring sulfate pollution of ponds in the Kankakee River along southwest coast of India. Environ Earth Sci 72:1887–1900
Basin, Illinois-Indiana. J Environ Qual 29:1594–1603. https:​ //doi. Ustaoglu F, Tepe Y (2019) Water quality and sediment contamina-
org/10.2134/jeq20​00.00472​42500​29000​50029​x tion assessment of Pazarsuyu Stream, Turkey using multivariate
Singh KP, Malik A, Mohan D, Sinha S (2004) Multivariate statistical statistical methods and pollution indicators. J Soil Water Conserv
techniques for the evaluation of spatial and temporal variations 7:47–56. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr​.2018.09.001
in water quality of Gomti River (India)—a case study. Water Res Wahed MSA, Mohamed EA, Wolkersdorfer C, El-Sayed MI,
38:3980–3992. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2004.06.011 M’nifSillanpaa AM (2015) Assessment of water quality in sur-
Singh H, Pandey R, Singh SK, Shukla DN (2017) Assessment of heavy face waters of the Fayoum watershed, Egypt. Environ Earth Sci
metal contamination in the sediment of the River Ghaghara, a 74:1765–1783. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1266​5-015-4186-0
major tributary of the River Ganga in Northern India. Appl Water Wayland KG, Long DT, Hyndman DW, Pijanowski BC, Woodhams
Sci 7:4133–4149. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1320​1-017-0572-y SM, Haack SK (2003) Identifying relationships between base-
Smith CJ, Hopmans P, Cook FJ (1996) Accumulation of Cr, Pb, Cu, Ni, flow geochemistry and land use with synoptic sampling and
Zn and Cd in soil following irrigation with treated urban effluent R-mode factor analysis. J Environ Qual 32:180–190. https​://doi.
in Australia. Environ Pollut 94:317–323. https​://doi.org/10.1016/ org/10.2134/jeq20​03.1800
S0269​-7491(96)00089​-9 Wu Z, Zhang D, Cai Y (2017) Water quality assessment based on the
Subramani T, Elango L, Damodarasamy SR (2005) Groundwater qual- water quality index method in Lake Poyang: the largest freshwa-
ity and its suitability for drinking and agricultural use in Chithar ter lake in China. Sci Rep 7:17999. https​://doi.org/10.1038/s4159​
River Basin, Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Geol 47:1099–1110. 8-017-18285​-y
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0025​4-005-1243-0 Zhaoshi W, Xiaolong W, Yuwei C, Yongjiu C, Jiancai D (2018)
Sudhakaran S, Mahadevan H, Arun V, Krishnakumar A, Krishnan KA Assessing river water quality using water quality index in Lake
(2020) A multivariate statistical approach in assessing the quality Taihu Basin, China. Sci Total Environ 612:914–922. https​://doi.
of potable and irrigation water environs of the Netravati River org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.08.293
basin (India). Groundw Sustain Dev. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. Zhuang W, Gao X (2013) Acid-volatile sulfide and simultaneously
gsd.2020.10046​2 extracted metals in surface sediments of the southwestern coastal
Sunkari ED, Abu M (2019) Hydrochemistry with special reference Laizhou Bay, Bohai Sea: concentrations, spatial distributions and
to fluoride contamination in groundwater of the Bongo district, the indication of heavy metal pollution status. Mar Pollut Bull
Upper East Region, Ghana. Sustain Water Resour Manag 5:1803– 76:128–138. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpo​lbul.2013.09.016
1814. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4089​9-019-00335​-0
Suresh G, Sutharsan P, Ramasamy V, Venkatachalapathy R (2012) Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Assessment of spatial distribution and potential ecological risk jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
of the heavy metals in relation to granulometric contents of Veer-
anam lake sediments, India. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 84:117–124.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoen​v.2012.06.027
Sutadian AD, Muttil N, Yilmaz AG, Perera B (2016) Development
of river water quality indices-a review. Environ Monit Assess
188(1):58. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​1-015-5050-0

13